Stirring the pot at church

[Lost Boy]

Do you have one or more members that are not afraid to ask the hard questions in Sunday School, priesthood, RS meetings?

How did Noah get all the animals on the ark?  How about dinosaurs?

Why is the sacrament passed to the Bishop first?

Did Jonah really get swallowed by a fish?

OK, maybe these aren't really hard questions, but they are questions that go against the establishment.  How do you handle these questions as an instructor?  Are you the type that might ask a similar type question?

If something about the gospel doesn't quite make sense, are you the type that would ask the question in Sunday School, if lesson was on that particular topic, or would you wait to ask a bishop?  Or would you just not ask the question and let it go?

For me, it would depend on the question.  Is it really pertinent?  If you are discussing that God is no respecter of persons, I might ask the question about passing the sacrament to the bishop first.

 

 

[anatess2]

The purpose of Sunday School/Auxiliary meetings is to strengthen faith and testimony.  Questions and answers to questions, therefore, will have to serve that purpose.

[Guest MormonGator]

I think the hardest questions aren't asked by people who want to be difficult, but by people who are genuinely curious and don't know that the questions they are asking might be controversial or difficult. Sort of like the kid in the Emperors New Clothes. He isn't trying to be difficult, he just doesn't know that what he is saying is "controversial". I've asked a few questions like that before. If we have the answers, than we shouldn't fear the questions. 
 

[estradling75]

4 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

I think the hardest questions aren't asked by people who want to be difficult, but by people who are genuinely curious and don't know that the questions they are asking might be controversial or difficult. Sort of like the kid in the Emperors New Clothes. He isn't trying to be difficult, he just doesn't know that what he is saying is "controversial". I've asked a few questions like that before. If we have the answers, than we shouldn't fear the questions. 
 

And if we do not have the answers we should not fear to say "we do not know"

[Rob Osborn]

My last ward I lived in was hard questions every week. I stopped going to the regular doctrine class because it would often turn into a debate every time because someone would always bring up that question people can't leave alone.

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

When I ask questions in the class I teach I am usually met with vapid expressions, but I teach Elder's Quorum.

[unixknight]

Questions that trigger discussion are the best questions.

That said, Sunday school isn't a forum for debate.  People should be free to share their perspectives, but if the discussion starts to become a debate, the instructor should steer the class to move on.  If the question was asked in good faith then the different ideas presented should be good food for thought.

[MarginOfError]

I'm the kind of person that likes to ask really difficult questions.  However, I deliberately choose not to ask such questions in classes at church; mostly because I don't want to embarrass of frustrate a teacher who may not have ever considered such a question, or isn't prepared to answer it.

When I'm teaching a class, however, I welcome and sometimes even instigate those hard questions. 

There are times, however, where I sometimes feel a difficult question will not benefit the development or progression of the class; will take longer to fully answer than we have time to in class; or the complexity of the answer is such that a private conversation after class would be more beneficial.  In these cases, I say that I won't answer the question in class, but if anyone wants to discuss if after class, I am happy to do so then.

Most importantly, I always try to leave the impression that I'm willing to talk about anything, just maybe not right now.

[MarginOfError]

However, in a sense of levity, I would also say that most of the questions you use as examples are not particularly difficult.  If I were teaching and these questions came up, I'd probably give answers such as the following and move on without really discussing

How did Noah get all the animals on the ark?  If you're a biblical literalist, then I don't know.  Probably some lost ordinance that was scrubbed from the record with the promise never to flood the world again.  If you're not a biblical literalist, then he probably didn't.  Moving on now.

How about dinosaurs? If you're a biblical literalist, then dinosaurs are evidence that God is perpetrating a fraud against humanity. If you're not a biblical literalist, then dinosaurs are irrelevant to our discussion. Moving on now.

Why is the sacrament passed to the Bishop first? TraditIOOOOOOON! TRADITION!   (yes, I'd sing Fiddler on the Roof).  Moving on now.

Did Jonah really get swallowed by a fish? Don't be silly.  Of course he didn't.  Moving on now.

[Just_A_Guy]

19 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

Did Jonah really get swallowed by a fish? Don't be silly.  Of course he didn't.  Moving on now.

. . . Because everyone knows that whales are mammals, not fish.  

[MarginOfError]

3 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

. . . Because everyone knows that whales are mammals, not fish.  

There are veins bulging in my head!

[Guest MormonGator]

1 hour ago, estradling75 said:

And if we do not have the answers we should not fear to say "we do not know"

Of course. And some of us (some, not all, some) need to remember not to be defensive and think the worst of those who ask difficult questions. 

[Traveler]

Often I will classify answers to Gospel question into two categories.    The first category I call the Sunday School Class answer.  This is the answer suitable for everyone from age 5 to 105, investigator or seasoned gospel scholar and struggling  with testimony or died in the wool never waver believer.  When I was growing up as a youth - I seldom paid much attention in class so whenever a church teacher would ask me a question - I would answer, "Because Jesus is the Christ".  Strangely - I was never completely wrong with that answer.  As I have gotten older and wiser I have become amazed at the brilliance of that answer.  In a gospel class if the answer to any question does not included somewhere that Jesus is the Christ - then likely whatever else most want the answer to be really does not actually matter.

The next category of answers I will call the motivation answer.  In essence this answer is intended to generate more questions and convince the person asking the question - or answering the question with this is that one and only answer according to scripture and the prophets - that they need to study more, be more humble and seek the spirit.  I believe one of the most difficult saint to deal with in any church calling is the one that shows up thinking they know all the answers and refuse to hear anything else or listen to anything, anyone else has to say - unless it validates their answer.  Mostly I believe I have failed if my answer has not convinced the listener that the answer is not so easy that they do not need to follow the recommendation of Jesus that suggest that we must knock, seek and ask in our journey to learn gospel truths and that G-d will reveal line upon line upon line and precept upon precept upon precept.  The greatest heresy of all - is thinking you know the answer.

 

The Traveler

[Grunt]

If it's relevant to the topic, I answer it as best as I can and encourage others to help.   If it isn't, I keep the discussion on track.

[Fether]

2 hours ago, Lost Boy said:

Do you have one or more members that are not afraid to ask the hard questions in Sunday School, priesthood, RS meetings?

How did Noah get all the animals on the ark?  How about dinosaurs?

Why is the sacrament passed to the Bishop first?

Did Jonah really get swallowed by a fish?

OK, maybe these aren't really hard questions, but they are questions that go against the establishment.  How do you handle these questions as an instructor?  Are you the type that might ask a similar type question?

If something about the gospel doesn't quite make sense, are you the type that would ask the question in Sunday School, if lesson was on that particular topic, or would you wait to ask a bishop?  Or would you just not ask the question and let it go?

For me, it would depend on the question.  Is it really pertinent?  If you are discussing that God is no respecter of persons, I might ask the question about passing the sacrament to the bishop first.

 

 

There are very easy answers for most of those questions that “go against the establishment”.

My sister left the church partly (and I emphasize the word ‘partly’) because she had these questions that genuinely bugged her but no one would give her an answer.

I don’t think there should be any question that we should dodge. What should be ignored is a member asking or answering question that is basing their statement on theology and theory and ignoring what has been said by the prophets in official settings.

The truth of the matter is that there are answers to just about every question one could ask. Even if there isn’t a solid answer, there are countless possibilities that have not been brought to the mind of the person asking the question. 

Jonah was indeed swallowed by a whale, but it was never said that he survived the ordeal while in the stomach. Perhaps God brought him back to life when he washed up on the beach. This isn’t a solid answer, but a plausible explanation to a “difficult” question that offers a view that isn’t common and makes the imagery more believable. This is really all most people want.

But of course you do get hecklers. In such situations I call them out on their bullcrappery

[Vort]

1 hour ago, MarginOfError said:

Why is the sacrament passed to the Bishop first? TraditIOOOOOOON! TRADITION!   (yes, I'd sing Fiddler on the Roof).  Moving on now.

When I was young, I believed (was told, probably) that we pass sacrament to the bishop first out of respect and deference to him. This rubbed me wrong even as a deacon, since even as a youth I realized that the sacrament is not to be used to honor people. So -- and I'm ashamed of my youthful rebelliousness -- I would often try to hurry up and pass to someone else first before the bishop, just because. Stick it to The Man, and all that.

Of course, there is a good reason to offer the sacrament first to the bishop (or whoever is in charge of the meeting). The ordinance is done under his auspices; he approves the performance of the ordinance or directs it to be redone. It's not a matter of honoring the man, or even the office. It's a matter of the president presiding.

[Vort]

I disagree with the premise. I don't believe there are any "hard questions". There are questions we can answer and questions we can't. Nothing hard about it.

In my experience, most of the so-called "hard" questions are either those of the second type -- questions we can't (yet) answer -- or they are pseudoquestions, thinly veiled accusations. For example: "Why did Joseph Smith marry a fourteen-year-old girl?" is a reasonable question. "Why did Joseph Smith engage in pedophilia, the sicko pervert?" is not.

[MarginOfError]

5 minutes ago, Vort said:

When I was young, I believed (was told, probably) that we pass sacrament to the bishop first out of respect and deference to him. This rubbed me wrong even as a deacon, since even as a youth I realized that the sacrament is not to be used to honor people. So -- and I'm ashamed of my youthful rebelliousness -- I would often try to hurry up and pass to someone else first before the bishop, just because. Stick it to The Man, and all that.

Of course, there is a good reason to offer the sacrament first to the bishop (or whoever is in charge of the meeting). The ordinance is done under his auspices; he approves the performance of the ordinance or directs it to be redone. It's not a matter of honoring the man, or even the office. It's a matter of the president presiding.

I understand the line of reasoning (I really do).  I just don't buy it.  Given that the presiding authority already has to acknowledge that the prayers were said correctly, it strikes me as overly redundant (see what I did there!) to require that he take it first in order approve of its performance.  

That being said, I'm not on a campaign to do away with this practice.  It's an entirely benign tradition and I just don't care.  I'm just not inclined to attribute any more meaning to it than I perceive.  

Also, breaking out into song randomly is kind of fun.

[Vort]

32 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

I understand the line of reasoning (I really do).  I just don't buy it.  Given that the presiding authority already has to acknowledge that the prayers were said correctly, it strikes me as overly redundant (see what I did there!) to require that he take it first in order approve of its performance.  

That being said, I'm not on a campaign to do away with this practice.  It's an entirely benign tradition and I just don't care.  I'm just not inclined to attribute any more meaning to it than I perceive.  

Also, breaking out into song randomly is kind of fun.

I don't disagree that it's repetitive, redundant, and says the same thing over and over. On the other hand, I have witnessed a couple of times in my life when the bishop has whispered something to the deacon passing the sacrament, who then returned to the sacrament table and set things aright. So perhaps that redundancy exists for a good reason.

I would randomly break into song more often had I inherited my dad's pipes. Alas, a ward choir bass is the best I'll ever be.

[Guest MormonGator]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

 I'm ashamed of my youthful rebelliousness

The youthful rebellion of normal people-sex, drugs, rock and roll. 
The youthful rebellion of @Vort-Not passing the sacrament to the bishop first. 

You Mormon boys. 

Edited September 17, 2018 by MormonGator

[anatess2]

42 minutes ago, Vort said:

I don't disagree that it's repetitive, redundant, and says the same thing over and over. On the other hand, I have witnessed a couple of times in my life when the bishop has whispered something to the deacon passing the sacrament, who then returned to the sacrament table and set things aright. So perhaps that redundancy exists for a good reason.

I would randomly break into song more often had I inherited my dad's pipes. Alas, a ward choir bass is the best I'll ever be.

You linked to a talk about this a while back.  I can't think of what to put on the search terms to find it but I'm thinking you would remember what I'm talking about.  Something about there's peace in the order of things or some such.

[Lost Boy]

1 hour ago, MarginOfError said:

I understand the line of reasoning (I really do).  I just don't buy it.  Given that the presiding authority already has to acknowledge that the prayers were said correctly, it strikes me as overly redundant (see what I did there!) to require that he take it first in order approve of its performance.  

That being said, I'm not on a campaign to do away with this practice.  It's an entirely benign tradition and I just don't care.  I'm just not inclined to attribute any more meaning to it than I perceive.  

Also, breaking out into song randomly is kind of fun.

I attended a BYU ward where the bishop instructed us not to pass him the sacrament first.  He claimed to have a letter from the first presidency stating that it was not required to do so.

To me passing to the Bishop first just confuses the teaching that God loves all of his children.  He doesn't love the Bishop more.  

I don't buy into the notion of doing things because of tradition.  Don't get me wrong, tradition can have its place..   If there is a tradition there is generally an understood way to do things making it easier for all to be on the same page.

But then people get set in their ways and there may be better ways to do things or reasons not to do things, but we do them anyway out of tradition.  I do question many things and ask why something is being done a particular way.

As for passing the sacrament to the Bishop first, if you ask the question, people will give you different answers and generally most answers are not based in doctrine.  If it isn't based in doctrine and members have misconceptions as to why it is happening, I would rather see it done away with.

[Vort]

2 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

You linked to a talk about this a while back.  I can't think of what to put on the search terms to find it but I'm thinking you would remember what I'm talking about.  Something about there's peace in the order of things or some such.

Probably Elder Packer's classic talk The Unwritten Order of Things.

[MarginOfError]

1 minute ago, Vort said:

Probably Elder Packer's classic talk The Unwritten Order of Things.

This is me stirring the pot...."This is so incredibly super duper important that we won't write it down!"

[Lost Boy]

Another practice I don't get is the need to shake a general authorities hand.

Here again, a general authority is a man.  The spirit he has is the same that is in you and me.  Shaking his hand is not going to infuse testimony power into you.  I would venture that there are plenty of members that are more saintly than some general authorities.  They hold the same priesthood as most males in the church.

I understand why the General Authorities shake the hands of members...   Because the members want to and it brings a smile to many members faces when they do so.  I have shaken the hands of a number of general authorities and I was excited at the time, but in retrospect, I really got nothing out of it.

To me it is like having a 3 hour layover in London and then saying that you've been to England..  Being able to spend an evening with a general authority would hold vast more appeal.